Absolutely! On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Patrick Mahoney wrote:
> I like the idea of having optional keyword arguments available in struct > field construction. In many cases, I find it more declarative upon reading > the code, though input takes longer. I just tend to recall names better than > constructor/argument order. It could help to understand the code if the > struct declaration is located further away from the site of struct > construction as well, especially if there is a different problem in the > source that prevents syntax colouring from succeeding and thus the handy > DrRacket file and module navigation from being available :) > > -Patrick > > On 17 August 2012 14:52, Danny Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday, August 17, 2012, Rouben Rostamian wrote: > Is there the equivalent of Common Lisp's /structure/ type in > Racket? I looked through Racket's User Guide and Reference > manuals but did not see something similar, although it's > quite possible that I saw one but did not recognize it. > > > Racket's default structure constructors are functions with positional > arguments. Racket does support functions with optional keyword arguments, > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/lambda.html#(part._lambda-keywords) > > so it should be technically possble to do what Common Lisp does here. Other > responses to this thread show some macros to autogenerate a helper function > that uses keyword arguments. > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
